Skip to comments.Obama Administration Vs Nuns - Legal Fight Over Contraception Mandate
Posted on 01/05/2014 1:57:18 AM PST by Zakeet
The Obama Administration and their mainstream media allies attacked a Catholic order, the Little Sisters Of The Poor, calling them weasels, for refusing to agree to allow contraception, sterilization and abortion drugs. In filings to the Supreme Court, the administration said this is no big deal.
These nuns take care of the needy elderly in society until they die. They treat people with love and kindness and dignity. In the sister's homes, nobody dies alone. The government claims they aren't religious enough for an exemption under the ObamaCare mandate.
The nuns have certain religious beliefs that they live by; there are certain things that they can't do. For failing to consent to baby killing, the impoverished sisters must either pay thousands of dollars per days in fines, or close their ministry.
This is a powerful video.
This is no big deal ...
I wonder what God thinks of the DOJ and NYT lying through their teeth in order to try to discredit the sisters by attempting to manipulate the public and make the sisters look like they’re crazy, stupid, silly, and stubborn.
I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes for all the tea in China.
They’re wearing habits. They’ve got backing. Bo’s in for a real fight. I don’t think he’s up to it
The problem I have with this is the litigants and the courts assume religious freedom is exclusively for religious groups. The freedom of religion is an individual’s right. If my religious beliefs tell me something is immoral then I have the same rights as a Catholic order does to decline the goverent’s mandate.
74. The passing of unjust laws often raises difficult problems of conscience for morally upright people with regard to the issue of cooperation, since they have a right to demand not to be forced to take part in morally evil actions. Sometimes the choices which have to be made are difficult; they may require the sacrifice of prestigious professional positions or the relinquishing of reasonable hopes of career advancement. In other cases, it can happen that carrying out certain actions, which are provided for by legislation that overall is unjust, but which in themselves are indifferent, or even positive, can serve to protect human lives under threat. There may be reason to fear, however, that willingness to carry out such actions will not only cause scandal and weaken the necessary opposition to attacks on life, but will gradually lead to further capitulation to a mentality of permissiveness.
In order to shed light on this difficult question, it is necessary to recall the general principles concerning cooperation in evil actions. Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it. This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it. Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts which he personally performs; no one can be exempted from this responsibility, and on the basis of it everyone will be judged by God himself (cf. Rom 2:6; 14:12).
To refuse to take part in committing an injustice is not only a moral duty; it is also a basic human right. Were this not so, the human person would be forced to perform an action intrinsically incompatible with human dignity, and in this way human freedom itself, the authentic meaning and purpose of which are found in its orientation to the true and the good, would be radically compromised. What is at stake therefore is an essential right which, precisely as such, should be acknowledged and protected by civil law. In this sense, the opportunity to refuse to take part in the phases of consultation, preparation and execution of these acts against life should be guaranteed to physicians, health-care personnel, and directors of hospitals, clinics and convalescent facilities [Like the Little Sisters of the Poor]. Those who have recourse to conscientious objection must be protected not only from legal penalties but also from any negative effects on the legal, disciplinary, financial and professional plane.
Oh yeah. And then there’s ‘Humanae Vitae’. The Jesuits rejected it when it came out in the ‘sixties, and they still haven’t been able to come out ahead since.
I agree that it is an individual right. I think that is where this is going to end up at the end of the day.
While I cannot be accused of having an excessive love for the Jesuits, especially from the 17th century on, this is not entirely fair. Not every Jesuit rejected Humanae Vitae, and to paraphrase Fr. Michael Scanlon, of Franciscan University of Steubenville and charismatic fame, in the beginning pretty well everybody did. This includes the majority of episcopal conferences in first-world countries—are you familiar with the Winnipeg Statement?
That said, your observation that those who rejected have been crippled is spot on.
It is an individual right, but on a practical basis some group with demonstrable skin in the game has to lead the fight for individuals because in our corrupt state of affairs, individuals against the government do not matter so much anymore.
True, it is an individual right, but if you try to fight it, they will squash you like a windshield bug.
The fight starts with the Priests and Nuns, but it does not end there.
Keep your faith, in this fight, I'm sure we are on the side of GOD.
How the average American can look themselves in the mirror each day with this vicious tyrant kicking sand in their face is beyond me. He and his entire administration needs to be impeached and imprisoned.
Obamacare forces ninety year old nuns to buy contraceptives. Obama calls it his Immaculate Deception.
“Religious” can only extend to the True Religion. Note; Mohammedans are exempt. Obamacare institutionalizes Dhimmi status for infidels in the USofA.
Obama could just do what Kim Jong did to his uncle:
Feed all the nuns into a cage of 120 starving dogs. Problem solved.
Poll numbers for this national disgrace may go into the minus category sooner than we can pray for.
Leftist Media Cult Members Attack Little Sisters Of The Poor, Calling Them Weasels For Refusing To Be Bullied By Obama Regime
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Whatever. I am just stating widely held understanding among Catholics. Does every Jesuit think this way? Of course not.
My experience has been that every Jesuit devotee in my extended family votes and thinks liberal. Not because of union loyalty, but, in this case, BC, Georgetown, Catholic, Holy Cross.
And experience with childhood friends and current colleagues of various colleges, and their libertine thinking, along with loss of faith and following their own idea of what the church should be doing. None of whom got through a Jesuit University without being turned away, or who, retaining their faith, cites the former constant struggle at college to do so.
The other faiths I am not talking about. What business do they have in accepting or rejecting Humanae Vitae?
None. they’d be wise to do so and unwise not to, as Catholic teaching is wise on matters of good living in any case, for anyone.
But I am not talking about that.
From “First Things”, Jan 2006
It should not be thought that these are simply expressions of unhappiness with the instruction from Rome. What can only be described as Jesuit repudiation of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality is considered and apparently entrenched in the leadership of the Society. Theological Studies, the Jesuit academic quarterly, publishes articles such as The Open Debate: Moral Theology and the Lives of Gay and Lesbian Persons. Father James F. Keenan, S.J., professor of moral theology at the Weston Jesuit School of Theology in Massachusetts, leaves no doubt that he thinks it is a legitimate debate and it is wide open. He cites numerous gay and gay-friendly Catholic thinkers who agree with him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.